say in a form that relies on everyone's best intentions and that is why sometimes evidence have to be presented and diagrams have to be presented and the matter can be resolved. i do not understand how some people can look at the backyard and say some have -- something has been added and something has not. president hwang: thank you. >> i refer you again to the attachments to my brief. there was a sinkhole in december 1995. there was a permit that was negotiated and issued for them and was signed off in 1999. it was signed off as final.

they did not protest the 1999 sign-off of the permits they had bargained for when the sinkhole happened four years earlier. they waited until 2009 and in 2009, there were additions made. there were additions made on permits that the planning department never gave notice for. the planning department routinely uses the 311 process for additions to residential buildings. when a 311 notice is given, that means you want to have the expense in -- expansion and they meet with all the parties. what was done in 2008 was they started the construction and they build additions. my minutes are from the building inspection commission exhibit b

and exhibit c. i was not at those meetings. those were the building commission hearings. they involved building inspectors and statements before the commission on what was shown at that project. and the building department measured the building against the plan. they found three editions. it was not me. you do not have to believe me. you have to believe the building department. they found three editions that went beyond the scope of what was permitted in 1999 -- the 1999 permit. they went through a long period with the planning department and mr. sanchez is right. the planning commission was not going to approve any additions

that had not gone through the planning department's process which is a reasonable position for the planning department and the planning commission to take. we ask you to uphold the decision of scott sanchez and the planning commission on the d.r. and the change was in 2008 when these additions happened, not in 1999. thank you. >> thank you for the complete and thorough response. just reiterating the history here. the appellant it obtain a permit to reconstruct and the department recognized there were errors in the permit. as mentioned in the site plan, there were inconsistencies in

their. it should not have been recognized without a variance. the appellant was represented by a competent counsel at the time of the work of the commission. we believe the commission did make the correct terman -- determination. i hope you will uphold and i am available for any questions. >> your stufstaff made site viss to verify what was permitted?

>> we did site visits but i had not asked him that. i know from the records from the building permit they have made several visits to the site. >> your department had some reliance on what the building department did. >> this was a complicated matter. the department did review the permits. >> anything further? the matter is submitted. i guess we give them the opportunity to respond.

there was very little information. this is the step with in some type of the process, a long-term process. i do not see any freasons to overturn the denial of the building permit or the denial. >> i agree. i would love to deny both appeals for the reasons stated in the planning commission's brief. if you could call the roll.

>> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to deny the appeals and uphold the petition and deny the variants. on that motion, ficvice presidet fung, aye,. the denials are upheld with a vote of 4-0. president hwang: welcome back to the august 22, 2012 meeting of

the board of appeals. we're calling item number seven. shannon gallagher. subject prieta 2101 washington street. a permit to alter a building. new plumbing fixtures, park improvements, lights, new retaining walls, and it. witt will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. at one of three open committee meetings, it was suggested that the san francisco mind troupme e be honored. to commemorate them, the amphitheater was designed. it turns out the friends of

lafayette park and had it wrong. in 1962, they performed once at washington square park. the following year, the recreation and parks commission denied them the permit for for their performances fighting their act was obscene. ironically, this non-history is being commemorated at our park while one of the most important historical aspects, the holiday house, is not even getting a plaque. instead it is getting paid men and picnic tables. which brings me to one important piece of new information for the commission to consider. the apparent remnants of the holiday mansion were brought to my attention by local historian rand richards, author of three books on san francisco. the planning department does not seem to be aware that remnants of the house actually exist. this is the house. here is the cement footing that

runs 55 feet. it is not known if it continues under the ground. it is covered by dirt and grass around the other side of the house. any archaeological a significant artifacts is to be preserved under federal law. not covered over with pavement and picnic tables. it seems the planning department has an unresolved issue. i invite you to come up and inspect the summit and mr. richards has agreed to me you should be interested in preventing irreversible damage to our remnant of the home in one of san francisco's most careful -- called for characters. -- colorful characters. what i am asking of you is to modify the permit to protect this asset. the appeal addresses several concerns regarding the ada and

related california access rules. a planned space would not be allowed. there are no parking spaces in the park. according to the racks and park department, the planned accessible space is required because providing access to persons who are disabled at the new maintenance complex is required. but there is no new maintenance facility. they will be replacing and relocating the existing maintenance container with two new 18 by 20 foot containers and a new concrete bunker to hold greenways. because this is not a new facility, the board cannot allow them to pay for paradise and put a parking lot. i am asking you to modify the permit to remove the parking space from precious little park space. and let's talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room. just as if you or i were to apply for a building permit, the

totality of the project should be presented to the planning department at one time. it should have been sent to the department of building inspections for a permit. hear, work was commenced without a permit. what ever excuses the rec and park department wants to offer, questions about the quality of the work done during six weeks remain unanswered. prior to obtaining the permits, this significant work included trenching, compaction of soil and formwork yet no inspections were done. in reviewing the plans, the planning department signed off because it was represented to them that all the work done would be in accordance with the secretary of interior's standards. now, we have four permits related to this project. in addition to the 447 and 448, there are two others that are not yet issued. only one of these requires any

notices of special inspection. for a comprehensive permit to be issued, everything that is related needs to be referenced. the recreation and parks department cannot cherry pick items, limiting the scope of work to obtain sign-off's and hide this issues from the department of building inspection. when i visited dbi and spoke with the chief inspector, he explained there was all landscaping taking place at the park. -- a little landscaping taking place at the park. now we have new construction that includes a new picnic area that is 3500 square feet. the change to the landscape and we're moving historic features in what is supposed to be a relevant -- a rehabilitation project. the rec and park department seems to view db by -- of dbi as superfluous. for project like this with public funding, this sponsor

defines the project and represents what needs to be done to dbi. let's consider. drainage work was done with a out a permit. the work was moved to a plumbing permit which they did not receive until two or three weeks later. the work went and checked for an additional two or three works and it was major drainage work. according to this inspection from the -- june 27, worked on the trench was complete. by june 24. and this was supposed to be non- significant work, in an area of the park that is prone to flooding, where we tend to have dogs and a lot of people. the geotechnical engineers spoke about the soil and raised

concerns. dpw says they found 47% of the time, this will fail. we have a feeling soil -- failing soil test. all this work is done without nispect. -- inspect. public works may be looking at this. this is done in serial permitting fashion. it has done -- been done without inspection. president hwang: thank you.

we can hear from rec and park now. permit holder. >> good evening, board members. i am a project manager for the recreation and parks department speaking to you on behalf of the permit holder at the recreation and parks department. the renovation is a major capital projects being performed under the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond program. it was planned and developed over course of many years, culminating in the initiation of the planning process in 2010. the renovation of the 11-acre park includes repairs to the park infrastructure, pathways, stairs, retaining walls, irrigation, drainage, and landscape. upgrades of the existing restroom, and storage shed to meet current codes for

accessibility, upgrades to the existing program spaces to meet current users and operations needs. that includes upgrades to the playground, the dog play area, courts, picnic area, and maintenance complex. in 2010 when we started this process, the recreation and parks department partnered with the friends of lafayette park to do it outreach process. over the course of six months, we collected information from project stakeholders and we held three well attended public meetings and a series of stakeholder focus groups to develop the concept plan for the renovation project. over the course of 2011, design team under the direction of recreation and park develop the design and detailed construction documents for the renovation project. this included an extensive and

complex approval process involving many agencies. it culminated -- vice president fung: can you reduce that image a little bit? we cannot see the entire plan. >> it culminated in december 2011 when we completed our documents. we applied for birk -- a building permit from the department of building inspection. with coordination from building inspection, the scope of the project was divided into multiple permits because there are multiple buildings on the site. building permits are focused on building construction and not so much on site work. the majority of site work is exempted from permitting.

we have four building permits. only one of which is on appeal today for your consideration. that is permit no. 448. i have noted the scope of the permit is limited to ada barrier removal and renovations of the restroom, accessible trouble, and issues related to the title 24 building code for accessibility. construction of retaining walls over 4 feet and the new path for ada. in her